15 December 2010 3:41 PM

Matthew 'Twister' Parris, Dope and the Guardian, Prisons and Punishment, Bed and Breakfast accommodation, Parasites - All Human Life is Here

Amazingly, there are still readers of this weblog who believe government statistics. There are two rules about such statistics, which ought to be grasped by all informed persons. One is that all politically important statistics are massaged. The other is that in socialist societies governed by utopian idealists (such as ours) most statistics are subject to what is known as the 'Bikini effect', namely that what they conceal is more interesting than what they reveal.

One such believer is Grant Price, who (as well as using the ghastly dead cliche about the 'Elephant in the Room', a cliche which ought to be shot) writes: 'The statistics clearly show the country heading in the opposite direction [to the one suggested by me]. Crime is falling, and falling significantly, and when one considers that a staggering proportion of crime is perpetrated by foreigners (thanks to Labour's incontinent immigration policy), the level of criminality amongst the British is falling even more rapidly, despite decades of “liberal” misrule.'

I'm sorry. But where do I begin? 'Recorded' crime is that which has been recorded by the police, which is to say that which the police have entered on the forms which they have to fill in. By definition, that which is recorded excludes that which is not recorded. Much modern crime is not recorded. How might a crime not be recorded? Well, one common case would be when the victim doesn't think it worth reporting. So (for example) the multiple victim of burglary on the sink estate, who probably never had insurance and certainly doesn't now, so has no need of the 'crime number' which is the sole police response to most crime these days, has no reason to report the latest, and many reasons not to. Becoming known as a 'grass' in these parts of our country is a ticket to utter misery.

Then again, the police (who long ago maximised crime figures in order to press for higher funding) now have many ways of massaging them downwards to satisfy ministers (of all parties) who currently want to claim that crime is falling.The first and easiest way of doing this is to be largely absent from the streets, to close police stations or move them to remote locations, to take a very long time to answer the phone and to be of no great help if and when they eventually do arrive at a crime scene. If people (known contemptuously by the police as 'civilians') continue to persist with the charade of calling the constabulary for crimes which the force, I mean service, regards as 'trivial', then thefts are reclassified as lost property, multiple burglaries in one building somehow appear as one crime, etc etc. Not to mention murders somehow ending up in court as manslaughter.

I agree that some figures can't be fiddled, and some aren't. Totals such as those of arrests (though these are often unobtainable) or of convictions are incontrovertible. But these do not represent accurate figures on the numbers of crimes actually committed. Even the remaining diligent and anti-crime police officers (as shown in my 'Abolition of Liberty') are justifiably reluctant to embark on the form-filling nightmare which follows an arrest. They have an incentive to avoid it.

Homicide, I suspect, has sometimes fallen absolutely as hospital trauma surgery skills have increased (and they have, enormously) and as ambulance services have grown faster and more effective, and their crews better-trained in keeping the badly-injured alive. It has certainly fallen in relation to the amount of homicidal violence taking place. Put simply, it is now much easier to make a savage attack on someone without killing him or her. I have said many times that if we still had the medical techniques of 1965, we would have an annual homicide rate far higher than it is. Many who would have died 40 years ago now survive, and their cases are classified as wounding or attempted murder. (See my book 'A Brief History of Crime'.) Bank Robbery is increasingly the resort of the unbelievably stupid, as precautions against it are now so elaborate that the chances of a successful theft are virtually nil.

Then there are those things which are perceived as crimes or as illegal disorder by many of us - mainly to do with loutish gatherings of youths in streets, the kicking of footballs against homes, other similar miseries perpetrated by the young and strong against the old and vulnerable, the feral harassment of the old or handicapped or different (see the case of Francesca Pilkington), uncontrolled public drunkenness, which in the not so distant past would have been dealt with by the police and which they now simply ignore. These are pandemic in urban areas, but almost totally unrecorded. As for the possession of drugs, I think we may be sure that the enormous number of cannabis warnings given are a fraction of the number of offences to which the police turn a blind eye, or about which they do not know because they are not specially interested in finding out.

Above all there is the increasing switch from classic crime statistics to the British Crime Survey as the main source of supposed information about this subject. The British Crime Survey is not an assembly of gathered figures, but an opinion poll with all the faults of such things, and a rather flawed one at that, specially bad at noticing crimes committed against the young, who are the principal victims of many offences. Those who wish to believe that crime (and disorder) in this country are genuinely diminishing are welcome to their belief, even though it must be hard to maintain for any but the most sequestered. But they are deluding themselves. You might equally well believe that the amount of dangerous and careless driving has diminished, when the opposite is obviously the case, or that hardly anyone ever uses a mobile phone while driving, or hardly any cyclists run red lights. Of course they do, but it goes unrestrained by authorities who have ceded the Tarmac to the motorist, and so it also goes unrecorded.

Twister Alert

How can I get it across to some readers that my pursuit of Matthew 'Twister' Parris is not motivated by personal distress, or because I am 'upset' - but by a desire to uphold truth and pursue justice, both of which have been wounded by this episode? It is the truth which has been insulted, not I.

On the matter of truth, Mr Parris twisted my words in a public place, ignored my immediate protests and my subsequent ones, and refused multiple chances to put this right in a civilised fashion. He lives by his tongue and pen, which are surely devalued by the twisting of the words of others. He also has a reputation for being a 'decent guy', 'reasonable' etc, which in my view conflicts with this behaviour.

On the pursuit of justice: Some of you may have begun to guess that the more often I mention Mr Parris's behaviour, the more references to it will find their way on to the World Wide Web, and the harder it will be for him to encounter people who are unaware of his twisting of my words. He may put this right at any time by admitting that he twisted what I said and (preferably) apologising so that I can forgive him, as I wish to do - but currently cannot.

Mr 'Richie Craze’ (really? I suppose it's possible) states: 'Perhaps you can explain what part of what Mr Parris said you said you disagree with?'

Well, Mr 'Craze' should know that I have done so here and here (scroll down to 'What I said....')

Though whether Mr 'Craze' actually reads anything here, or just imagines it all to suit his own prejudices, I don't know, given what he goes on to say, which is: 'Given that you've consistently written scornfully of homosexuals, or gays, to use the modern parlance;'

Have I so?

Perhaps Mr 'Craze' could produce examples of these 'scornful' writings.

Mr 'Craze' then adds: 'and stand in opposition to giving them equal rights (I believe you stated not too long ago that decriminalising homosexuality was as far as you would have liked the law to go)'

This on the other hand is more or less correct, though there are important qualifications about the loaded phrase 'equal rights'.

Mr Craze then lurches over a set of non-existent points on to the track he wishes to be on (a common fault in my critics, who even so seldom realise that they have become derailed) by adding: 'then surely Mr Parris's comment was merely an extrapolation of a view you do in fact hold?'

Well no, it surely wasn't - as I have been at pains to explain. I might add that it also certainly wasn't what I said or intended in the discussion at issue. Mr Parris, to his credit, has not sought to seek refuge in this dispute by the wretched excuse that this is what he thinks I meant in general (as opposed to what I actually do think) about the subject, therefore it is all right to pretend that it is what I actually said on this specific occasion, when in fact I didn't. So I advise his defenders not to do so either. It makes them look very cheap. If you say somebody said something, then it is wise to be able to show that he said it, rather than that you thought he thought it.

Bed and Breakfast

Some contributors have mentioned a curious case at Bristol County Court - once again a Bed and Breakfast run by a Christian couple seems to be the object of a mighty legal action. Wasn't the last one about Muslims being upset? This one is about homosexual rights.

There are many interesting things about this case, but what fascinates me about it (and I have yet to see any reports which answer my question) is why the homosexual couple involved chose the Chymorvah House private hotel given that there must be so many such establishments in the area? Was it personal recommendation? Did they search the web? Or what? Even if they had no idea of the hotel's policy stated upon its website ('Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others). Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.'), how did they happen upon it?

I'd also be interested to know how often they go on bed-and-breakfast seaside holidays together or singly, and when was the last time and where it was?

Just curious, I guess.

Prisons and Punishment, and 'New Parties'

Mr Everett ludicrously misrepresents an answer I gave to a question seeking examples of actions a conservative government might take which I regard as desirable and which would be against the interests of capitalism. He turns this into a programme for a 'new party'. I mentioned neither programme nor party, nor set these forward as such. Why do people do such things? There can be no new party until there is a vacancy, and the electorate showed at the last election that they did not wish to create such a vacancy, being content to be controlled by the existing social democratic political class. I have laid aside talk of political reform until it once again seems practicable. But I'm happy to discuss those things which I favour.

I do not care, by the way, that my wish to place heavy restrictions on private motor cars might make me unpopular. No worthwhile cause exists without this risk. I think the growth of private motor traffic is so damaging to civilisation, peace and beauty that I believe it is time someone addressed it directly. I am sure many others (including many involuntarily enslaved by our car-worshipping society) share this view but fear to express it.

The fact that many goods are distributed by road does not mean that they *should* do so or that no better way can be found than this filthy, destructive, dangerous, noisy method, which makes us dependent for our transport and economy upon some of the nastiest and most unstable regimes on earth.

Likewise, the fact that most car use is irrational and wasteful, and much of it dictated by town planning which creates the need for cars where none existed before, does not mean that all use of private motor vehicles is irrational. There's an excellent case for taxis, and for private cars in remote and hilly rural areas which cannot be practically reached by rail.

Oh, yes, and prisons. I'd like to repeat here a response I left on the previous thread to Mr James Staunton: 'James Staunton, in a post dripping with knowing and superior scorn, accuses me of making a “sweeping assertion” that most criminals don't reach prison until they have a long string of previous offences behind them (he then gives an oddly partial quote from what I said).

‘Try this, from the Government's own “Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales, 2009” (p.76) “Those offenders with a substantial previous criminal history are most likely to receive a custodial sentence. In 2009, 38 per cent of sentenced offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions received a custodial sentence compared with 15 per cent for those with only one or two previous sanctions. Although there are a substantial number of sentenced first time offenders receiving custodial sentences, 26 per cent in 2009 compared with 18 per cent in 2000, these are offenders whose first conviction is for a relatively serious offence in contrast to the majority of offenders who have a longer criminal history of minor offences.

‘ “In 2009, seven per cent of juveniles receiving a custodial sentence had no previous criminal history compared with 10 per cent for adult offenders. For both age groups the proportion of custodial sentences given to offenders with 15 or more previous sanctions has risen steadily since 2000.”‘The accompanying Table 6.2 backs this up. I would go into more detail, but alas the Ministry of Injustice confesses that it does not possess or tabulate statistics on this subject which address the matter more closely. I have no doubt that, were they available all figures would back up my contention. Does Mr Staunton know any better?‘He also objects that I don't provide the Soma report, as mentioned. I had thought I'd given enough co-ordinates for anyone to find it. He might try here:‘http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_53373_EN_emcdda-cannabis-mon-vol1-ch4-web.pdf’

Guardians of what?

Some of you may have seen my brief article in 'The Guardian' today. (Wednesday 15th December)

This arose out of a brief letter I wrote to the Guardian in my defence, after Decca Aitkenhead's original article was published. The paper's comment section generously and properly offered me a little extra space in which to make my point. The response to this which came from the readers of that newspaper is very telling. Hardly a single comment actually addressed the point I make. Almost all were marinated in personal fury, resentment and loathing. It is shocking to realise that most of these people probably imagine themselves to be well-educated.

After reading these comments, I reflected that:

I didn't say I have no prejudices - of course I do, and so does any man. But I did say that I don't let them get in the way of facts, as Ms Aitkenhead and Professor David Nutt had suggested in the pages of the Guardian. To support this defence I cited evidence of scientific concern about the effects of cannabis on mental illness, a matter on which I had wrongly been accused of 'baseless alarmism'.

And I pointed out that in this case the facts were on my side, as Professor Nutt had made a statement about the treatment of cannabis possession in which he appeared to have let prejudice get in the way of the facts.

That, basically, was it. I am more and more convinced (and there is evidence of this here too) that drug abuse makes its victims angry and intolerant lobbyists for selfishness. I don't mind them disagreeing. But I am alarmed by the intolerant, censorious rage with which they attack my freedom to disagree with them. The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument.

Parasites

Some points. No, I don't regard children, incapable of fending for themselves, as parasites. Nor do I regard old or sick people, who through age, accident or illness must now rely on the rest of us to care for them, as such. I reserve the term for those who could shift for themselves but prefer to rely on others, and - while doing so - sink their teeth into the hand that feeds them. I doubt whether many of those involved in the violence of recent weeks are in fact students in any serious meaning of the word.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Posted by: Kafka Fan 17 December 2010 at 07:23 PM.

How very Kafkaesque. Accusations but no one is to know what they're being accused of, just the usual vague psycho-babble, nothing very specific.

I don't know what facts Mr Hitchens twisted regarding the B&B affair, I thought he was very careful not to state any any conclusion he might have come to but, he has his suspicions as do I. Two homosexuals pick an obscure place to stay, are offended when they're not allowed to share a room and it's straight round to the constabulary to lodge a complaint, it all seems a bit coincidental to me.

"If my name was Beckham Fan would you assume I think I'm a super-fit sportsman?".

No I'd think you were a moron. I'll let you into a little secret - I think Mr Hitchens was being ironic or sarcastic, you choose which.

Richie Craze: "Peter Hitchens, thanks again for your thoughtful and considered responses (the only one I was even interested in)" - Well then, I'll just conclude my dialogue with you for the sake of me and others who might be interested. But I am sure that you would agree with me when I say that it is possible to have a vigorous debate without scorn on issues that we feel strongly about when each party respects the other.

"I very much hope for your sake if for no one else's that one of your children turns out to be homosexual." - I have been personally confronted with this sort of challenge before by friends. My response is that my children will always be my children, and I will love them unconditionally. We are always going to be in conflict about something, never mind the slight possibility of natural homosexuality, and I am always going to be learning from them, too. That does not mean that I must adopt the bigoted worldview of public sex education and the homosexual lobby.

"Gay people exist. Your children should be aware of the fact. People don't choose their sexualities. Gay people don't materialise from another dimension." - We agree, although I don't think that sexual orientation is never a matter of choice. But I want my children to learn about gay people from gay people whom I respect, not from some government-approved agenda to indoctrinate multiculturalism.

"Gay marriage isn't preventing anyone else from getting married, so you can live precisely how you wish to," - This might be true if I were living in a secluded log cabin and intended to stay there (which might not be a bad idea the way things are going). And this was a common argument during the same-sex marriage debates here in Canada. The problem is that almost all individuals do not live in a vacuum. My children now have to live with peers in a country that has officially undermined its support for the natural social arrangement in which young people are prepared from birth to grow up to be responsible husbands, wives, fathers and mothers who will prepare the next generation to do the same. This is the one basic social trait that all ethnic cultures should be able to find common ground on. Instead, each of us who cares about our children growing up to be happy in families of their own have to count on society even less and distrust whom our children are interacting with even more. And put up with "Johnny has two daddies" stories in school.

In short, in order to maintain the level of goodness of our civilization, we need all parts of it working together towards some basic common values and goals, especially the institution of the family. In long, I don't have the time, and I've only been learning as I go along myself.

Mark Jones says: "However, is it not the case that most "ordinary" people, the Moral Majority one might call them, have simply given up on politics altogether, and don't bother to vote, given as they are a false choice between a trio of leftist parties, who don't bother to keep manifesto promises anyway, mistrust of politicians in general, etc? I would contend that the low turnouts in General Elections bears this out."

Mark Jones - if people have no interest in politics such as the best interest rate, fair enough, but there is one issue which takes a high priority in nearly all voters' thoughts - crime and anti social behaviour. Most people have very strong views about this, judging by the comments they make in conversation. I also consider that whilst most people are not expert in interest rates, we are all experts on crime by our own eyes and ears.

Therefore if voters are experts on the subject of crime (which they are), and if they have strong opinions about a subject (which they do), they are being very irresponsible when they vote for any MP of whatever party who is pro-crime. The only two parties that wanted to restore the death penalty received 5% of the vote at the election. So people *could* have chosen representatives who wanted to reduce crime, but instead voted for pro-crime MPs like Ken Clarke who want to open the prison gates.

So how can people say 'it makes no difference', 'they are all the same', when there are at least two parties who clearly wish to reduce crime? It is like someone moaning that there are no buses running, then a bus stops, he does not get on it, it drives off, then he starts moaning again that there are no buses running. This is like the person moaning about crime, then a party comes along every five years that offers to do something about it, and they ignore it. Then they carry on moaning about crime again.

Even if they think that the anti-crime parties are going to be beaten by the pro-crime parties, I cannot see why they think that their vote is wasted. On the contrary, by *not* voting at all, they are not being neutral as they claim, or 'above politics', they are in fact helping to boost the percentage which the pro-crime parties get (which would have been lower if they had voted for a minority party, even if it was the Monster Raving Loony Party). Therefore the abstainers as well as the voters of pro-crime MPs have to share the responsibility for the high crime levels which we now endure. They have to realise that they have caused this situation.

Hello Michael Hyde. Glad we agree on something already. Firstly, I am not seriously "self-righteously demanding an apology" - I am trying to highlight the hypocrisy of Mr Hitchens doing so while frequently twisting the meaning of others' words and actions (ie. snidely implying the gay couple were a set up without actually stating as much, because he knows he has no evidence for this).

Secondly, of course I know that there are people who suffer from crime. The only thing I have objected to - if you read my comment again - is Mr Hitchens' hyperbole that implied every reader would suffer so as a result of a slight shift in policy from the government (which, incidently, I don't even agree with). Such populist hysterical hand-wringing (or flapping - I'm afraid I must stand by that!)demeans real victims of crime by using them simply to score emotional points in an argument.

This is why, as you demonstrate, all my insults (unlike Mr Hitchens') relate to his style of argument and communication, which I feel is generally speaking shrill, nasty, underhand and, yes, childish.

Hi Mark Jones. Don't worry about ganging up on me (though I must correct you I'm actually a Ms Kafka Fan). However, perhaps you could refrain from attaching me to vague criticisms of "guardianistas" or "the left".

I have not done any of the following, as far as I can tell: "They passionately and angrily espouse their views, and demand that society conform, shouting down any criticism or dismatling of their views with vicious, bile-filled ad hominem attacks ("fascist ", "homophobe", "sexist", "Islamophobe", etc and that catch-all, "racist")."

Unless you can point it out to me? As I've said, I don't object to Peter Hitchens because he disagrees with me, I am amused by his persistant hysterical tone and hypocrisy (ie. he gets wound up over someone twisting his words, then twists the facts regarding the gay couple at the B & B.)

I certainly don't think I'm the font of all knowledge or even particularly well read. I'm a huge fan of Kafka which is why that's my name, not to seem 'intellectual' or 'trendy'. If my name was Beckham Fan would you assume I think I'm a super-fit sportsman? I hate to say it but there's a rather nasty smell of inverse snobbery about Mr Hitchens comment. Oddly misplaced too since Mr Hitchens is both better educated, more middle class and wealthier than I am. Am I wrong to feel he, as a paid blogger, should be above such things and should play the ball not the (wo)man?

You haven't explained why protecting children from being placed with bigoted parents is a "lame" excuse.
Posted by: Richie Craze | 17 December 2010 at 12:05 PM

A person that believes homosexual acts to be wrong is not a bigot. If you believe that such a belief makes a person a bigot, then you are actually showing yourself to be the bigot. A bigot is one who thinks them self superior because of their beliefs.The morality or immorality of homosexual acts cannot be proven or dis proven, yet your assert that anyone that disagrees with your belief is a bigot. In other words we are wrong and you are right and if we don't agree with you we are scornful, close -minded or whatever other names you want to call us.You are the one than cannot live and let live.

I will not call you a bigot. You are entitled to your beliefs. Just don't force them on me or my children. I believe that is all Brooks Davis is asking for as well.

The personal examples of people that would never reject a homosexual child are very close to me. They have homosexual children whom they have never rejected. They love them, their siblings love them, and these children know that they are loved. They remain part of the family and they feel welcome amongst their family.
Is that good enough or do you need full names, addresses and phone numbers ?

I also know plenty of people well enough to know if they had a homosexual child they would react in the same way.
You continue to show your prejudice in your reaction to Brooks Davis. You don't know anything about him (or her) so you have no way of knowing how he would react to having a homosexual child and yet you assume that he needs a lesson. The only information that he has given on the subject is that he doesn't endorse it. What you clearly cannot grasp is that one can disapprove of homosexuality and still love their homosexual friends or family members. I know it takes some maturity to be able to do that but it is possible.

Your lame excuse was entirely based on the premise that this is not possible, so this is why it is "lame"

" Peter Hitchens, thanks again for your thoughtful and considered responses (the only one I was even interested in"
Posted by: Richie Craze | 17 December 2010 at 12:05 PM

I'm very sorry to have interrupted your private conversation on this blog open to the public. I will not make any further comments.

Kafka fan (I'm afraid your choice of author is about the only think I would agree with you on).

Your original post was nowhere near as clear as you claim it to be, littered as it was with insulting phrases. Perhaps before you self righteously demand retractions you yourself should retract such statements as "hand-flapping hysteria", "you sound ... like an aggrieved teenage girl" and "swivel-eyed, adolescent hyperbole".

Your use of such ill considered phrases does suggest to any neutral reader either that you do not believe people are living in the circumstances Mr Hitchen's describes, or that you don't care if they do or not.

If you do not wish to be misunderstood perhaps in future confine yourself to arguing your point and not thinking up weak insults.

Further to my earlier comments about cars, it might not be the anti-car "statistics" which have brainwashed Mr Hitchens:

It might be all those health reports.

You know, all the ones about how cars kill all those thousands of people with lung diseases with their filthy exhausts, as graphically illustrated by those advertorials over a filthy smoking car exhaust!

You know:

The reports that actually were about TRAFFIC, and even TRANSPORT (ie including shipping) pollution:

The ones about filthy bus engines, and filthy train engines, and the filthy power stations that fuel trams and electric trains.

Strange that we never hear about the contemporaneous report for the NHS which concluded that there were neither health, nor environmental, reasons for restricting car use in cities.

So much for Mr Hitchens' "filthy" cars.

Or perhaps it was actually the report about cancer deaths from cars........

You know, the ones about the cancer hot spots around bus garages and terminii......

Then again, I suppose that's down to the filthy park and ride facilities for the filthy cars the filthy motorists use to get to the clean buses blamed for "transport" pollution?

For someone who seems to be for liberty and honesty, and against big government and big lies, he seems to have chosen a strange hobby horse to go to work on.

It's very interesting how Mr Hitchens is offended by CiF, which does have its faults, however one thing you don't see on that site is comments being moderated out simply for showing up misrepresentations in an atl blogger's comments. Please apologise for your aforementioned twisting of my words so that I might forgive you.

I hear what you say about 85% of the general public not agreeing with the policies of our elected leaders, and you ascribe this to people ignorantly knowingly voting for people who they do not agree with, through tribal loyalty, etc (if I have summarised your point correctly).

However, is it not the case that most "ordinary" people, the Moral Majority one might call them, have simply given up on politics altogether, and don't bother to vote, given as they are a false choice between a trio of leftist parties, who don't bother to keep mainfesto promises anyway, mistrust of politicians in general, etc? I would contend that the low turnouts in General Elections bears this out.

The general apathy towards politics is, in my view, a dangerous development, not least in that it gives these "leaders" more of a free hand.

I would also say that few people form intelligent, well thought out opinions about politics (or about anything for that matter), anyway. Most just vote out of self-interest as well, not for what is right and just (we have no coherent concepts of what these are anyway in our post-Christian, he-who-shouts-the-loudest-wins society.)

"Until then Mr Hitchens must carry on occupying the role in which I suspect he is secretly most comfortable: that of a voice in the wilderness.
Posted by: Christopher Charles | 15 December 2010 at 05:10 PM"

'A voice in the wilderness'

If you compare the airtime given by the TV and Radio media to the voices of the establishment with the airtime given to Peter Hitchens and others with his views, then certainly Peter Hitchens is 'a voice in the wilderness'.

For example he did not get much of a say in the Panorama prisons debate programme and was rudely interrupted, meanwhile those who were on-message and part of the establishment were given as much airtime as they wanted.

But we must not confuse being given a small amount of airtime with unpopularity or being out of touch. Far from it. For example, take the Panorama prisons programme. Let us refer to Peter Hitchens' brief, interrupted points on the Panorama programme as 'the voice in the wilderness' and let us refer to Ken Clarke on the same programme as 'the voice of the establishment'. Which of these two voices was more in tune with people in the real world watching the programme?

As 85% of the people think that prison sentences are too lenient (ITV 'Tonight' poll), I conclude that in this case 'the voice in the wilderness' on the programme was more in tune with real people than 'the voice of the establishment' was. And another point - you can be sure of one thing, that as soon as 'the voice in the wilderness' spoke on the programme, everyone was listening, knowing that it would not last long before the BBC man interrupted.

Also, when Peter Hitchens appeared on Radio 4 talking about drugs, once again, as 'a voice in the wilderness', his brief words for 3 minutes had more impact than 3 hours or 3 days or 3 years of predictable on-message broadcasting from the likes of BBC approved Matthew 'Twister' Parris.

Mark – thank you for your kind words, and I notice that you have been away for a while and returned recently.

Brooks Davis, I very much hope for your sake if for no one else's that one of your children turns out to be homosexual. You would learn so much, and it's attitudes such as yours that are the reason sex education is so essential, to counteract the indoctrination children suffer from the bigotries of their parents. Gay people exist. Your children should be aware of the fact. People don't choose their sexualities. Gay people don't materialise from another dimension. Not everyone shares your worldview. Gay marriage isn't preventing anyone else from getting married, so you can live precisely how you wish to, but yes, you have to tolerate gay people now too. The problem is yours. I like what you did about the "good gay friends" bit...

As for Hitchens' quote not being scornful, that's pure semantics. You can read any spin into it you like, but if I wrote the same sentence substituting "homosexuals" for "Christians" I would consider it a scornful remark. The sentiment can certainly be read as wishing that homosexuals did not exist, and if they absolutely have to, and won't conform to a Judeo-Christian worldview, then they should keep quiet and live in shame.

Elaine, your example is a perfect one of the trouble religion causes. Yes, I would consider that to be equally heinous. You haven't explained why protecting children from being placed with bigoted parents is a "lame" excuse. Does your "direct, personal experience" (which, of course, you don't give) apply to all potential cases, or is it merely anecdotal evidence that will do because it backs up your pre-conceived ideas? Why you think it impossible for the outcome I cited when I gave an example of precisely that suggests that no amount of evidence could change your mind.

Peter Hitchens, thanks again for your thoughtful and considered responses (the only one I was even interested in), which is precisely why I always defend you in conversation with my liberal elite friends (not that you need defending, I'm just saying). If only your followers on this blog learned something from you. Your response on Iain Dale's blog was excellent, though I didn't agree with all of it it was very well argued and temperate.

"I'm pleased for 'Kafka Fan' (gosh, we are an intellectual, aren't we?) "

At the risk of "ganging up" on Mr Kafka Fan somewhat, it is in my experience that many left-wingers, Guardianistas, etc consider themselves very well educated (and by the standards of this country, certainly are) and having read a selection of fashionable literature, frequently consider themselves to be the fount of all knowledge, and any disagreement with them is a sign of pathology.

The wiser, in my opinion, view that the more one knows, the more one is aware ot what one doesn't know, is very rarely found amongst these people.

They passionately and angrily espouse their views, and demand that society conform, shouting down any criticism or dismatling of their views with vicious, bile-filled ad hominem attacks ("fascist ", "homophobe", "sexist", "Islamophobe", etc and that catch-all, "racist").

It really does come down to the workings of the Frankfurt School, folks, in my view, and their long march through the institutions. Few of the general public agree with their policies, but they're in the positions to implement them. Political correctness is their tool that will usher in the EU tyranny.

I think it likely that cannabis will be made legal, perhaps all drugs, within five years.

Also, for someone who reacts so badly to their words being twisted, you don't half like doing it to others. As I made clear in my comment, it is your swivel-eyed, adolescent hyperbole that amuses me, not "the effects of uncontrolled crime on the lives of others". I expect you to retract the accusation as soon as possible.

"Of course the state should be concerned by foster parents' views, for the simple reason that they may end up fostering a gay child and making that child's life hell for not conforming to their religious ideologies. "
Posted by: Richie Craze | 16 December 2010 at 10:38 AM

If this is the excuse you are going to give for the totalitarian actions imposed on the grandparents who believed homosexuality to be wrong, it is a lame one.

First because not everyone that believes homosexuality to be wrong would kick a 15 year old child out on the street or "make their life a living hell". I happen to have direct, personal experience which absolutely proves this prejudicial idea to be false.
Secondly, following such prejudicial logic, if a Jewish family cut off contact with their child because they married a Muslim, then no more Jewish families should ever be able to foster a child because they might just do the same.

Regarding Matthew 'Twister' Parris. The Bash Britain Corporation must be a very corrupting place to be in, and he does spend a lot of time there. Often people who live in that bubble of a world lose touch with thoughful people in the real world.

"Homicide, I suspect, has sometimes fallen absolutely as hospital trauma surgery skills have increased (and they have, enormously) and as ambulance services have grown faster and more effective, and their crews better-trained in keeping the badly-injured alive. ...I have said many times that if we still had the medical techniques of 1965, we would have an annual homicide rate far higher than it is."

I recall reading an article by an inner-city doctor in which he stated that modern advances in the emergency treatment of (if I remember correctly) gunshot and knife wounds in particular --- which had become increasingly common in his hospital --- helped keep the murder rate appreciably lower than it would otherwise be. ...Which would appear to bear out your suspicion.

Richie Craze:
'Do you really think that all gay people are "activists" who spend their time trying to upset the religious right?' No, I know from personal experience of good gay friends that many are not activists.

"Paranoia"? Ah, first, the gay activists target all of society, not just the "religious right." Second, in 1990 here in Canada, same-sex marriage was not even on the political radar as an issue. Yet, by 2005, a Conservative minority government had changed the definition of marriage in Parliament to accommodate it, even though opinion polls showed that the public was only at about an even split on the issue. Therefore, is it paranoid or wise for a proponent of traditional marriage to be wary of homosexual activism?

"If I never again had to read or write a word about homosexuals, I would be very happy." Let me paraphrase that this way: "I have heard more than enough about homosexuality over the years, I disagree with its activism, and I don't want to be assaulted by it anymore." The rest of your Hitchens quote explains this introductory sentiment without scorn. There's no scorn there, just disagreement and resistance. Get it? I would also add, that I don't want my children to be indoctrinated with "Johnny has two daddies" propaganda when they get to public school - which is part of the reason I would prefer a private school if we can afford it.

Whilst I've often agreed with Mr Hitchens I find it strange that a man of his views should be against the motor car (except in its Ken Livingstone endorsed and supported role of "Public Transport" taxi).

Public transport was useful when towns and even cities were much smaller, people had regular jobs for life in defined central and inner city zones, commuted to work from single earner homes for life on bus and rail routes, hardly travelled apart from that, and engines and vehicles were expensive and heavy, and roads poor and weak.

Now we have short term jobs in random locations and regularly move multiple earner households, people travel much more extensively, and not just commute far further.

However, congestion first became a problem when rail moved too many people into inner cities that couldn't be distributed by public transport.

And drastic solutions such as ring roads for London were planned to alleviate the problem.

But they were put on the back burner because of the war:

The FIRST World War!

And then the Depression.

The Second World War.......

And when the plans were finally back on the drawing board they amalgamated rings (I think) 3 and 4 into the M25.

The only reason traffic in the massively enlarged city and on the M25 can still move is because it's composed of motor CAR-riages, and not horse drawn ones!

If you think that the car is dirty you haven't got a clue about the filth (and flies and disease) that accumulated in the good old pre car days.

Oh, and the fatality rates (and possibly even absolute numbers) were higher then.

And several times as many pedestrians per passenger mile are killed on the rail roads as on the ordinary ones, vastly more per vehicle/ driver mile.

In fact, per passenger mile, the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is in the same ball park as the numbers killed in collisions with motor vehicles on the roads.

But perhaps you prefer the statistics from the Campaign for Better Transport and other state provided, centrally directed, communal mass public transport supporters?

In reply to Bob son of bob.
We do not need a civil war. We just need the 85% to awaken to the infamy of those wretches parading as our Governance.
Strangely enough bob, I think these wretches do want a civil war, preferably before the 85% awaken
The reason EDL and UAF plus a few Islamists are allowed to create mayhem on our streets is so the paramilitary police can get plenty of training in . As having our Army back home they might find it more difficul The rank and file Tommy would not attack their own. As these tend to be among that 85%. And a stint in Afganistan tends to wake them up.
This sort of thing cannot go on for long . And an awoke majority is not what they want . any sign of it will be met head on believe me. Power never changes hands peacefully .

"So we do not need a civil war, just for people to start for the first time in their lives to vote for policies they agree with, rather than voting along group-loyalty lines, which is more appropriate for supporting football teams than for selecting our rulers."

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.